One issue was SantorumÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opposition to the Supreme CourtÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 1965 ruling that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception. Santorum said he still feels that a state should be able to make such laws.Ã¢â‚¬Å“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide,Ã¢â‚¬Â he said.Ã¢â‚¬Å“You shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things,Ã¢â‚¬Â Santorum said. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Why would I not be surprised if 60s!Santorum would be against the 13th and 14th Amendments, Brown vs. Board of Education, and the Civil Rights Act? Other than his previously expressed racism, that is.

Miles11

He does realize that states with no birth control and sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates, right?...Right?!

Why is it that none of these people realize that this is genuinely harmful. They repress these teenagers sexually which ends up just making them hornier due to that 'forbidden fruit' element, and then when they have no education on birth control or contraceptives, it can lead to horrible, horrible things.

"In case you're interested, there's still some positions available for that bonus opportunity I mentioned earlier. Again: all you gotta do is letus disassemble you. We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together. So that's a complete reassembly. New vitals. Spit-shine on the old ones. Plus we're scooping out tumors. Frankly, you oughtta be paying us." -Cave Johnson

Who on Earth wants a State telling them how to live? Honestly, I don't fucking get this argument. Why, why why is being ruled by a state government so much better than being ruled by a federal government? You're still being ruled over. The state is not an individual human. It's a form of government. You know, government? The thing you're bitching about? "Well, it's about the state's right to govern themselves, and what the majority of what their people want." States can govern themselves, as long as as they don't implement laws discriminating against people or infringing on peoples' rights.

And then there's the argument of "Well, since the States rule, if someone doesn't like it, they can move to another state." Yeah, one problem. Traveling, and especially moving, can be expensive, not to mention disruptive, especially right now. What if someone is too poor to just pick up and move out of a state that works against them? Worse yet, and an issue that some people have concerning "state's rights," is when states take cues from eachother and start passing similar laws one by one (anti-abortion bills, for example). If every state, or a cluster of nearby states, pass the same laws, then people can't just "go to another state." There's no way a majority of women are going to be able to travel across the country just to get fucking contraception, nor should they.

Going on that, why is it that these people think federal government = corruption and state government = wholesome? State politicians most likely aren't looking out for you. They're politicians. They have the same capacity for corruption as any federal politician. What, just because it's smaller, state = wise and federal = oppression? In fact, here's another issue: Why is it always "state's rights" that's the concern? What about people's rights? Oh, I forgot. These people believe in mob rule, which is why they love the idea of states having all the power.

Which brings me to my last issue: I strongly believe that when these people cry about smaller government have absolutely no interest in personal freedom. They only care about the scope of power their respective states have. "How dare the feds tell people how to live? The state should be the one to tell people how to live! So no birth control, no abortions, no healthcare, and no queers or queer behavior. Hurray for smaller federal government intruding on peoples' personal lives!" They want smaller government, not so people have more freedom, but so they can have the pseudo-theocracy that they desire. I'm pretty sure I posted about this before, because I'm getting deja vu.

Also, for the people who use the same argument except in regards to Federal Government and corporations, my response is pretty much the same, except with economic issues instead of social issues.

It absolutely boggles my mind how the massive irony is lost on some people when the GOP claims to hate "big government" while wanting the government to ban birth control, outlaw abortion, obstruct LGBT equality, make Christianity as the state religion, execute people, etc.

Sometimes it seems that politicians have never even cracked a history book. Prohibition proved definitively that making something illegal does not make go away. Alcohol consumption in the USA did not decrease one iota under Prohibition. In some areas consumption went up. Not to mention the criminalization of alcohol directly leading to the establishment of organized crime. If making something illegal made it go away, we wouldn't be wasting billions of dollars a year fighting an essentially useless "war on drugs," would we?

Logged

"In case you're interested, there's still some positions available for that bonus opportunity I mentioned earlier. Again: all you gotta do is letus disassemble you. We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together. So that's a complete reassembly. New vitals. Spit-shine on the old ones. Plus we're scooping out tumors. Frankly, you oughtta be paying us." -Cave Johnson

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Corinthians 13: 4-7

This is silly. What they need to do is criminalize pregnancy. That'll fix the problem!

Logged

"Great Britain's two most senior military officers added to the uneasiness. [...] Lord Wolseley, Adjutant General, thought that it might be possible for an enemy to invade without waiters and pastrycooks."-Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought